Key result
Stewart-Hamilton method correlates with direct central blood volume in dogs but overestimates by ~12%.
Why the study?
Does the indicator-dilution method accurately measure central blood volume compared to direct measurement in dogs?
Population
22 open-chested dogs with red blood cells tagged with Cr51
Comparison
Indicator-dilution method vs Direct measurement of blood in heart and lungs…
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Supports indicator-dilution volume estimates in dogs; leaves open translation to human clinical use.
Does the indicator-dilution method accurately measure central blood volume compared to direct measurement in dogs?
Effect estimate: r = +0.88
The study substantiates the use of the Stewart-Hamilton formula to measure central blood volume, showing good correlation with direct measurements.
Schlant et al. (1959) studied this question. Stewart-Hamilton method (indicator-dilution) vs. Direct measurement (total radioactivity in blended homogenate) was evaluated on Central blood volume (r = +0.88). The Stewart-Hamilton indicator-dilution method correlated well with direct measurements of central blood volume in dogs (r = +0.88), with indicator-dilution volumes averaging 12% greater.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: